Obama’s newly announced actions to curb CO2 emissions by America’s coal fired power plants will do almost nothing to prevent global energy trends from progressing in the opposite direction, the DPA writes.

Moreover, not even drastic global action would prevent CO2 emissions from rising. The DPA writes that “energy generation would need to be revamped worldwide – up to going totally without coal, or catching the CO2 from the power plants. That is hardly realistic.”

Decrease in global poverty adding to energy demands. Number of automobiles worldwide to more than double by 2035!

Just the number of cars alone will more than double by the year 2015, from 1.1 billion 2.3 billion.”

India’s car ownership will jump from 20 cars per 1000 Indians today, to 130 by 2035. In China that measure will go from 80 today to 360.

Clearly the measures implemented by Obama will have no noticeable impact on the climate of the future, but threaten burdening Americans will trillions in added costs.

Global population will also increase strongly over the next 20 years. As a result, the even most sober studies see no chance of curbing CO2 emissions. The IEA writes that also in the year 2035 worldwide energy demand will be predominantly covered by fossil fuels. Today that figure is currently 86%. The DPA writes:

So CO2 will continue its unstoppable rise along with human prosperity and population. And should the temperature fail to rise much by 2035, as many scientists are predicting, then we will know that all the climate hysteria was for nothing. That, we suspect, is what the warmists are fearing the most. The truth is coming – like it or not.

Worstall is technically very misinformed, and so he makes a number of bad assumptions: EX: “For a start I don’t think there’s any of us at all who do not think that solar PV is going to be truly economically competitive with coal in the next decade at some point. We already know that it is, for certain uses and in certain places, but costs are still going down for panels by 4% a quarter, 20% a year.”

Panels are the least of the cost. It’s the converters, installation, maintenance, and control systems that are expensive and they will remain so. Then there’s the problem that solar panels don’t work at night and when it’s cloudy. The problem of storage is not even close to being solved. Let’s not talk about the toxic chemicals involved in their manfacture and the recycling costs that lie ahead. Every solar job is subsidized to the tune of 500,000 euros or more.

One only has to look at Spain and Germany to see that Worstall hasn’t informed himself about the economics. The entire German solar module manufacturing industry has been practically wiped out. Germany has been forced to increase its coal consumption – and not to reduce it.

Like I wrote, a 30% drop in USA is not going to do anything significant to curb global CO2 emissions. They are going to rise strongly for the next 20 years and global temperatures aren’t going to rise in response – you’ll see. Then it will be proven to have been a hoax.

P Gosselin
2. Juni 2014 at 20:47 | Permalink | Reply
“Worstall is technically very misinformed, and so he makes a number of bad assumptions: EX: “For a start I don’t think there’s any of us at all who do not think that solar PV is going to be truly economically competitive with coal in the next decade at some point.”

But Worstall is politically very well informed: Competitiveness will not come about through further price drops in solar power (which are on the order of 10% a year, not 20 as he claims); but through increased price of coal power by means of regulations. What does “truly economically competitive” mean? It means anything a warmist wants. It is not defined.

Sure enough, in time the huge error of climate change alarmism will be found out. However the root of the fear is not global warming or climate change. The root is Malthusian thinking, the clash between the limitation of resources and peoples’ desire to consume more and more.

There will be other limitations found to replace climate change, and these will be promoted to take its place. We have seen this occurring already with water, ecosystems and Hubbert’s peak oil, etc.

In the meantime ponder the speech by Maurice Strong back in 1992 to the Rio conference, where in his introductory speech on sustainability he used words to the effect that it was ‘our duty to bring down industrialised nations’.

To is not all about economics. If you really want to get technical learn about power system stability and what control systems are required to maintain synchronism and voltage control. This requires a matching of input and outputs in terms of both real power and reactive power. The usual generators have governors and excitation control systems to manage this, by detecting frequency which relates to real power, and voltage which relates to reactive power. And this stability is needed cycle by cycle, of the order of 1/60 second. Wind and solar cannot do this. Their outputs are at the mercy of the wind and sun. Unless the coal stations can be replaced with gas, hydro, nuclear or geothermal grid instability will increase.

The north west of the USA went very close to grid breakdown during the last very cold winter. Take 2 or 3 large coal fired plants off line and an equally cold spell will see wide spread blackout, and probably quite a few deaths. In that case Obama’s ill informed wishful thinking will see him impeached.

In any difficulty
Step 1: Identify the problem – Is CO2 causing warming? If not, then no problem.

Step 2: Identify solutions: Can we switch to renewables. If not, then find another solution.
The only reason electricity generation has been chosen is that the public never thinks about it. Try proposing that all cars and trucks stop running and see what the reaction would be. It would reduce CO2 emissions as much and be as destructive of modern life as shutting down the electricity supply.

All it Needs is a good, scary acronymm like “Нииомтплабопармбет� елбетрабсбомонимонконотдтехстромонт” (*short* for “The laboratory for shuttering, reinforcement, concrete and ferroconcrete operations for composite-monolithic and monolithic constructions of the Department of the Technology of Building-assembly operations of the Scientific Research Institute of the Organization for building mechanization and technical aid of the Academy of Building and Architecture of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”)

But it is all good and proper that self-appointed “saviors” like Obamesiah visit their draconian proscriptions on us little peeps. Our presumed saviors need to *prove* to each other that THEY are down for the epic struggle against freedom and individual liberty, the two greatest threats to would-be tyrants ever known.

The world must be made “safe” for both the old and new Royalty to frolic in bucolic splendor, free from those unenlightened (and planet killing) little peeps who have the audacity to believe that THEY even have the right to live! The hateful little twerps will have to learn to submit to their “betters”, even if those betters are complete idiots. As long as those idiots are fully invested in libcult doctrine and dogma and swear to harass and destroy those who are not, they are going to be portrayed as the smartest and most caring Nobility who have ever lived!!!!!

Only 6 of the 186 gigatons of new CO2 come from man’s activities annually. Of that six the US makes 20% or 1.2 gigatons and Mr. Obama’s efforts will reduce it by a very small amount. So small we cannot really estimate it accurately. Furthermore:

CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.9% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.1% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?

The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD that Micheal Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was the longest recorded time, 500 years, of peace with great abundance for all.

The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. That makes temperature change cause and CO2 change effect; not the other way around. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming concept.

Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions eager to help government raise more money for them. And, they love being seen as “saving the planet.”